Abstract
Seaweeds are foundation species on rocky shores that are exposed to a series of stressors. These include wave exposure, desiccation, grazing, and human activities, with habitat fragmentation as a common result. As part of climate and biodiversity changes, we are expecting increased winds and more frequent storm events, warmer climate, and trophic downgrading of ecosystems, causing overgrazing events. Here, we present the results from a two-factorial mesocosm experiment on the relationship between wave exposure, habitat fragmentation and growth (branching and tip elongation) of Fucus vesiculosus in the intertidal and upper subtidal. We found that intertidal seaweeds branched significantly more at low than high wave exposure. There was no effect of habitat fragmentation on branching, and no effects on tip growth from either wave exposure or habitat fragmentation. The experiment suffered greatly from uncontrolled grazing. Gastropod coverage was higher inside seaweed patches than in the seaweed free areas between and outside of the patches. In basins with highly fragmented seaweed patches, we found more gastropods at low than high wave exposure, whereas in basins with low fragmentation we found more gastropods at higher wave exposure. The percent coverage of gastropods in the basins did not seem to impact seaweed growth.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Globally, coastal ecosystems are experiencing ecological, functional, and structural changes due to increasing and interacting anthropogenic pressures (Hennige 2019; Halpern et al. 2015). Global pressures, such as ocean warming and increased intensity of storm events, combined with local pressures, such as habitat fragmentation and loss, and trophic imbalance due to overfishing, seriously threaten marine biodiversity (O’Hara et al. 2021). Coastal regions are particularly threatened, as this is where most human activities are concentrated today and will be even more so in the future (Halpern et al. 2015; Merkens et al. 2016). In these areas we find the rocky shore seaweeds. They are important foundation species that occur in the intertidal and upper subtidal worldwide, structuring diverse communities of associated flora and fauna (Spruzen et al. 2008; Christie et al. 2009; Clayden et al. 2014). Seaweed growth and morphology may contribute to ecosystem function as they are directly related to the complexity of the habitat (providing niches for numerous species, impacting the seaweeds function as shelter etc.) and food availability for associated species. Seaweed habitats provide a range of ecosystem services, including habitat provision for fish and invertebrates (Christie et al. 2009), nutrient cycling and regulation of water quality (Cotas et al. 2023, and references therein), provision of biomolecules and food when harvested (Mac Monagail et al. 2017), and carbon storage, export, and sequestration (Krause-Jensen and Duarte 2016).
Intertidal seaweed communities are, by nature, adapted to high variations in environmental conditions. They experience heat and desiccation stress at low tide (Davison and Pearson 1996, and references therein), which may influence seaweed physiology and community structure (Kautsky and Kautsky 1989; Nygård and Dring 2008). They also experience varying levels of wave exposure, which impacts seaweed growth and morphology (e.g., Bonsdorff and Nelson 1996; Ruuskanen and Bäck 1999; Long et al. 2013), clean the seaweed of periphyton, including epiphytic turf algae, and expose a larger surface area of fronds to light through movement (Koehl and Daniel 2022). The seaweeds themselves may modify waterflow and reduce heat and desiccation stress for the associated species (Bulleri et al. 2018). On top of the harsh environmental conditions that may act on intertidal seaweed ecosystems, they also experience pressures from human activities. This includes climate change related stressors, such as altered levels and patterns of heat waves and wave exposure (increasing wind speed and frequencies of storm events, Weitzman et al. 2021) and trophic downgrading of ecosystems, causing overgrazing (Steneck et al. 2002; Estes et al. 2011). Such interacting pressures can lead to the degradation and fragmentation of coastal habitats, reducing patch size and connectivity, and have severe effects on seaweed structure (e.g., size, shape, biomass) and ecosystem functioning, hampering their ability to provide important ecosystem services (Walker and Kendrick 1998; Mineur et al. 2015).
The effects of habitat fragmentation on intertidal seaweed communities have received little attention. Increasing the knowledge on the effects of habitat fragmentation on growth and morphology of these foundation species is important, as it will contribute to our understanding of drivers of change in structure and ecosystem functioning. In intertidal seaweeds, habitat fragmentation could possibly alter the small-scaled wave exposure (i.e., hydrodynamics) conditions, as larger seaweed patches likely attenuate water flow more than smaller patches. This, in turn, could have important repercussions on seaweed growth and morphology. If this is the case, the effects of habitat fragmentation may vary depending on wave exposure. Additionally, larger patches likely shade the seaweed fronds more than smaller and more fragmented patches, likely impacting the photosynthesis and growth of the seaweeds. These effects may also vary depending on the vertical position on the shore – for example, if smaller patches are less effective at retaining moisture when exposed to air at low tide, then intertidal seaweeds may be more negatively affected by habitat fragmentation than subtidal seaweeds.
The combined impact of habitat fragmentation and wave exposure may increase the susceptibility of ecosystems to other stressors, as multiple stressors often interact (Crain et al. 2008; Wahl et al. 2011). Herbivory, or grazing, is well known to have important top-down and bottom-up effects in intertidal seaweed systems (Lubchenco 1983; Bracken et al. 2014). The grazing pressure in coastal areas could possibly also be linked to habitat fragmentation and wave exposure. Habitat fragmentation produces more edges, which may alter the distribution of grazers through edge-effects. While this has not been studied in intertidal rockweeds, Reeves et al. (2022) showed that kelp forests were more susceptible to overgrazing when more fragmented. Wave exposure may affect grazing patterns directly or indirectly. For example, strong wave action can increase the probability of grazers (such as snails or sea urchins) becoming dislodged and increase the toughness of seaweed (Long et al. 2013). Increased toughness might reduce seaweed palatability, though Molis et al. (2015) have found that snail traits are phenotypically plastic, adjusting to the toughness of their food. Additionally, predation pressure on grazers may vary depending on wave exposure level (Menge 1978; Boulding et al. 1999). Therefore, habitat fragmentation, wave exposure, grazing and seaweed growth and morphology may be related in various ways. This study investigated these relationships in a mesocosm-based experiment by answering the following questions: (1) how do habitat fragmentation and wave exposure interact and impact seaweed growth (measured as tip elongation and branching)? (2) how is grazer abundance (i.e., coverage of gastropods) in seaweed beds impacted by habitat fragmentation and wave exposure? and (3) does gastropod coverage impact seaweed growth? We focused our study on the seaweed species Fucus vesiculosus, which is considered a foundation species in Nordic marine ecosystems (Graiff et al. 2015) and which dominates the rocky shore intertidal along the Norwegian coast. Habitat fragmentation and wave exposure was controlled as part of the experimental design, but the effect of gastropod coverage was included after observing rapid increases in numbers of gastropods in the basins.
Methods
The mesocosm basins and experimental setup
This experiment was conducted in 12 hard bottom (concrete) mesocosm basins at NIVA’s Marine Research Station Solbergstrand (59.62° N, 10.65° E), located in the outer Oslofjord, southeast of Norway. Each basin is 4.75 m long and 3.65 m wide, with a volume of 12 m3 and a water depth of 1.3 m at high tide (Bokn et al. 2001). The basins are individually supplied with surface water (1 m depth) from just outside of the station. The water has a residence time in the basins of 2–3 h, resulting in water temperature and salinity mimicking that of the surrounding Oslofjord surface water (Kraufvelin et al. 2020). Each basin has four steps descending to the basin floor, each step being 0.4 m wide. Tides are simulated according to a semi-diurnal tidal pattern with a tidal amplitude of 36 cm, so that all steps are covered with water at high tide, but steps 1 and 2 are exposed to the air at low tide (i.e., representing the intertidal zone). The basins have a wave machine generating constant wave action, with 18 strokes per minute. The wave machine may produce waves at two different levels, corresponded roughly to a wind strength of 5 m/s (gentle breeze at the Beaufort scale) in the high wave treatment and 2.5 m/s (light breeze) in the low wave treatment (Kraufvelin et al. 2010, 2020).
In March 2022, rocks and boulders with Fucus vesiculosus attached were collected from two donor sites in the intertidal and upper subtidal (down to approx. 1.5 m depth). The two sites were approx. 1 km from each other and 6 km from the research station, both having similar environmental conditions. The rocks and boulders with seaweeds were placed in the 12 basins at two different fragmentation levels (patch sizes). There were three replicate basins for each combination of habitat fragmentation and wave exposure level. Six of the basins had F. vesiculosus placed out as lots of tiny patches (LT, each patch with a size of approx. 0.25 m × 0.25 cm) and six basins had one single large patch (SL, approx. 1.3 m × 1.6 m) (Fig. 1). The seaweed covered the four steps in the basins, both the intertidal (step 1 and 2) and the upper subtidal (step 3 and 4). The total coverage of the rock with seaweeds were approximately the same in all basins, regardless of fragmentation pattern, and the number of patches in the LT basins were the same for all basins. Between the LT patches, there were seaweed free corridors varying between 0.5 and 0.8 m in width. The SL patches were centered in the middle of the steps so that they had approx. 1 m of seaweed free rock outside of the patch.
Seaweed growth
To monitor seaweed growth, we measured tip elongation, i.e., increases in tip length (excluding heavily grazed tips, see chapter 2.4), and the degree of branching that the individual F. vesiculosus experienced during the time of experiment. Apical tip length is a parameter commonly used to measure growth (Strömgren 1994; Bäck et al. 1992; Bonsdorff and Nelson 1996) and branching is one of the many seaweed properties representing morphological variation that responds to environmental factors (Bäck 1992; Ruuskanen and Bäck 1999).
In total, 72 tips were marked and selected for monitoring, three individuals in the intertidal (step 1) and three in the upper subtidal (step 3) in each of the 12 basins. The three individuals on each step were distributed evenly within the “single large” (SL) patch or amongst the available “lots of tiny” (LT) patches. The tips were selected at the beginning of the experiment amongst the healthy seaweed individuals. Most of the selected tips had multiple tip endings, which will henceforth be referred to as apices. The length of these apices was measured from just above the youngest bladder (under which a cable tie was attached for identification), providing a dataset consisting of several replicate length measures representing one tip. Branching was measured as the change in number of apices recorded per seaweed individual during the experiment. The properties were measured weekly, and a time-series was collected in two periods of 6-weeks duration, in early and late summer (i.e., 24.06–29.07 and 17.08–21.09 2022).
Gastropod coverage
From the first (June-July) to the second (August–September) period, we observed an increase in the number of gastropods within the genus Littorina sp., with abundances varying between basins. To quantify the abundance of these grazers, we measured Littorina sp. coverage on step 2 (the lower intertidal) in each basin. As we had high densities of gastropods and too little time to record them, we visually identified the coverage as presence or absence in each of 16 5 × 5 cm large cells within a 20 × 20 cm frame. Three frames were randomly placed within seaweed patches and three in the seaweed-free corridors outside of the patches. Coverage was estimated as the percent of all 16 cells in the frames having Littorina sp. presence. We include only the data from August and September, as this was when grazing became an observable issue in the basins.
The green crab Carcinus maenas, an important predator in the Oslofjord, was frequently observed in the mesocosm basins during the experiment. During monthly visits, the crabs were captured and distributed evenly in the basins to assure comparable levels of predation on gastropod abundances.
Calculations and criteria for data exclusion
As a measure of tip growth, we decided to use the rate of increase in length, i.e., the regression slope extracted from linear models using the lengths from all apices within each basin. This approach was preferred over calculating the average length increase from the beginning to the end of the experiment, as the latter approach would have implied a loss of temporal resolution in the data. Linear regression analyses were conducted for length of apices against time for each of the 72 replicate tips.
Before the analyses, some data were excluded based on three criteria. First, tips that were lost after two weeks were excluded, as this period was considered too short to accurately assess growth. Second, negative tips elongation or branching data were excluded, as this was assumed to be due to heavy grazing or loss of seaweed parts. Third, tips where severe grazing was observed were excluded from the analysis. This resulted in a total of 15 out of the 72 replicate tips being excluded, leaving a total of 57 seaweed tips for the analyses. In no case were all replicates lost for a given step in a specific basin. All data were uploaded to Zenodo (Hayes et al. 2024a, 2024b).
Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were run using the packages lme4 (Bates et al. 2015), car (Fox and Weisberg 2018), and emmeans (Lenth 2022) in R (R Core Team 2021).
Analyses of seaweed tip elongation and branching
Tip elongation was analyzed using linear mixed models (LMMs; Jiang 2007), with wave exposure, fragmentation level and their interaction included as fixed factors. Basin was included as a random factor in order to take the dependency of data in the same basin into account. The analyses were done separately for the intertidal (step 1) and the upper subtidal (step 3). Linear mixed models were checked for normality of error distributions using the Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk 1965) and diagnostic error distribution plots were examined. Significance of fixed factors and their interaction was tested in two-way ANOVAs of the LMMs, using type III sum of squares. In the case that there were no significant effects, one-way tests were also run for each of the fixed factors separately. Branching, being count data, were analyzed in generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs; Jiang 2007), with wave exposure and fragmentation level as fixed factors and basin as a random factor, separately for step 1 and step 3. These GLMMs were run using a negative binomial distribution and a logarithmic link function. The GLMMs were all checked for overdispersion. Significance of fixed factors and their interaction in all GLMMs was tested with the Wald Chi-squared test.
Analyses of gastropod coverage
Gastropod coverage was analyzed against wave exposure and habitat fragmentation using LMMs, including habitat type (seaweed patch or seaweed free corridors) and basin as random factors. The analyses were done separately for August and September. Model assumptions were checked using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test and by examining diagnostic error distribution plots. Significance of fixed factors was tested in two-way ANOVAs of the LMMs, using type III sum of squares. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was run to analyze the difference in gastropod coverage between the seaweed patches and the seaweed free areas in between and around the patches.
To learn about the possible impact of gastropod coverage on growth, we analyzed tip elongation and branching using LMMs and GLMMs respectively, with the predictors wave exposure, habitat fragmentation and their interaction as fixed factors, and gastropod coverage (at basin level) as a continuous predictor. Analyses were done for August and September separately. All LMM error distributions were checked for normality with the Shapiro–Wilk test, visual examination of error histograms and qq-plots, and GLMMs were checked for overdispersion.
Results
Effects of habitat fragmentation and wave exposure on seaweed growth
Tip elongation was not significantly related to wave exposure, fragmentation level or the interaction between them (Table 1, Fig. 2). Supplementary Table 1 shows the data on branching and tip elongation. Branching (i.e., the change in number of apices recorded per seaweed individual during the experiment), was significantly impacted by wave exposure in the intertidal (Table 2) and was higher in basins with low than high wave exposure (Fig. 3). The relationship was not significant for the upper subtidal. There was no significant relationship between branching and habitat fragmentation or the interaction between wave exposure and habitat fragmentation. A total of 18 apices were lost during the experiment, due to grazing, mechanical damage, drying or other unknown reasons.
Relationships between habitat fragmentation, wave exposure gastropod coverage, and seaweed growth
In August, gastropod coverage varied from 0 to 50% and in September it varied between 0 to 31%. Gastropod coverage was higher inside seaweed patches than in the seaweed free areas (August: one-way ANOVA, F = 33.05, P < 0.001; September: one way ANOVA, F = 24.46, P < 0.001). In August, there was a significant impact of wave exposure in interaction with fragmentation (Table 3), i.e., the effect of wave exposure on gastropod coverage dependent on habitat fragmentation level. In basins with lots of tiny (LT) patches, gastropod coverage was higher at low than at high wave exposure, whereas the opposite was the case for basins with single large (SL) patches (Fig. 4). In September, there was no such relationship. Supplementary Table 2 shows the data on gastropod coverage. There was no significant relationship between tip elongation or branching and gastropod coverage, neither in August nor September.
Discussion
This study provides the results from a mesocosm study on the relationships between wave exposure, habitat fragmentation, grazing and Fucus vesiculosus growth. We found that F. vesiculosus in the intertidal exhibited a significantly higher degree of growth through branching in basins with low compared to high wave exposure. Several other morphological traits of F. vesiculosus have been shown to be related to wave exposure (Bäck 1993; Long et al. 2013; Barboza et al. 2019), and our results support field observations showing higher branching in F. vesiculosus living on less-exposed shores (Kalvas and Kautsky 1993). Little is known about the physiological mechanisms responsible for branching on healthy F. vesiculosus tips, although irregular branching has been observed to result from the inhibition of apical dominance (Moss 1964). Intertidal species experience severe heat and desiccation stress for extended periods of time (Davison and Pearson 1996, and references therein), which may be more intense at low than high wave exposure due to a lack of water splash. This stress may result in a greater level of tip tearing or breakage, and thereby increased branching (due to inhibition of apical dominance). An explanation for the lack of effect of wave exposure on branching in the subtidal might be that the heat and desiccation stress is lower here. The lower level of branching at high wave exposure might also be an adaption to wave sweeping, as branched fronds experience higher drag stress than less branched fronds (Starko et al. 2015; Martone et al. 2012), which will be a bigger challenge in the intertidal than in the subtidal. Also, more branching may potentially help seaweeds to maintain moisture during low tide, but knowledge on this is lacking. We found no effects of habitat fragmentation on seaweed branching. Further studies into the growth physiology of this species will elucidate which other environmental factors are responsible for branching.
We found no significant effect of habitat fragmentation, wave exposure, or their interaction, on F. vesiculosus growth measured as tip elongation. While the effects of habitat fragmentation on intertidal seaweed growth have not been widely studied, these results contrast with several other studies showing effects of wave exposure on F. vesiculosus growth. Total thallus length has been generally shown to be reduced by increased wave exposure (Kalvas and Kautsky 1993; Bäck 1993; Barboza et al. 2019). However, this relationship has not been well established with respect to tip elongation. Bonsdorff and Nelson (1996) did find significantly higher tip lengths in F. vesiculosus in sheltered than wave exposed areas, however they found higher variation within sites of the same wave exposure than between wave exposure levels. Therefore, while wave exposure likely has important effects on total thallus growth, it is possible that this effect is not observable when considering growth of a specific tip, as has been done here.
In the second half of our experiment, high abundances of gastropods and heavy grazing on the seaweeds became progressively observable. Snails of the genus Littorina, along with certain large-bodied isopods (such as those of the genus Idotea) and amphipods, are important grazers in intertidal seaweed habitats in the Oslofjord (Kraufvelin et al. 2020). In August and September, gastropod coverage was significantly higher within seaweed patches than in the seaweed free areas between and outside of the seaweed patches. Seaweeds likely offer snails more food and more protection from predators (for instance crabs), hydrodynamic forces compared to “naked” substrate. Various gastropod species were considered together, so more information on different behaviors by different species could arise if species were analyzed separately, but this was not done due to time constraints.
Our results show an effect of wave exposure on gastropod abundance (measured as coverage) that depended on the level of habitat fragmentation. In basins with lots of tiny seaweed patches, increased wave exposure reduced gastropod abundance, while increased wave exposure was associated with increasing coverage of gastropods in basins with a single large patch of seaweed. A possible explanation for this finding might be related to differences in how wave exposure is dampened by the seaweeds. High wave exposure might dislodge gastropods (Denny 1985) and the waves are most likely attenuated more effectively in the basins with single large patches than in those with lots of tiny patches. Therefore, we propose that in basins with lots of tiny patches, high wave exposure reduces gastropod abundance because it increases their susceptibility to dislodgement. Further studies are needed to test these specific mechanisms. It is worth noting that the interaction between wave exposure and fragmentation was only significant in August. This most likely means that the difference disappears as the summer turns to autumn and the communities associated with seaweeds change.
Another possible explanation for the combined effect of wave exposure and fragmentation on the gastropod coverage might also be related to differences in predation patterns. The green crab Carcinus maenas is an important predator of gastropods (Buschbaum et al. 2007) and is the most common crab species in the Norwegian intertidal. Despite the number of craps being kept (to the best of our abilities) similar in all basins, the effect of their presence might have varied. Predation on intertidal rocky shores is found to be more intense in sheltered than in exposed areas due to the difficulties foraging in the heavy surf (Menge 1978; Boulding et al. 1999). Furthermore, dense intertidal algal canopies may favor predation more than sparse canopies (Menge 1978). Therefore, in general, the gastropods in our study may have been more susceptible to predation by crabs in basins with low wave exposure and larger, denser patches. We did not study gastropod size and morphology, but studies have shown that wave sheltered areas select for thicker shells, as the predator pressure is higher in these areas (Boulding et al. 1999). Further studies are needed to fully understand the possible variation in gastropod ecotypes and their relation to wave exposure.
The lack of a clear relationship between gastropod abundance (coverage) and tip elongation indicates that taxa other than gastropods could have been involved in the F. vesiculosus grazing. Large isopods and amphipods were frequently observed in the basins. Isopods of the genus Idotea have been shown to structure F. vesiculosus populations in the Baltic Sea (Engkvist et al. 2000). The abundance of isopods and amphipods was not monitored throughout this experiment, due to the difficulties associated with in-situ measurement of these highly mobile and small animals. Future replication studies, including grazing control (such as exclusion cages), will shed more light on the mechanisms behind these processes and may also uncover effects of habitat fragmentation and wave exposure on seaweed growth that were not studied here.
There are many seaweeds properties representing morphological variation that could have been used to assess seaweed growth. These includes thallus and stipe length and width, number of and distance between dichotomies, midrib width and number of tips (Ruuskanen and Bäck 1999). We focused our study on change in tip length and branching, as these are parameter commonly used to measure growth (Bäck et al. 1992; Strömgren 1994; Bonsdorff and Nelson 1996; Ruuskanen and Bäck 1999). However, more properties should be analyzed in order to fully understand how growth is impacted by environmental conditions and pressures.
Conclusion and future work
Our study showed that wave exposure impacts Fucus vesiculosus morphology (branching) in the upper intertidal. While habitat fragmentation did not have any direct effect on the seaweed growth parameters in this study (i.e., branching and tip elongation), it impacted gastropod (grazer) coverage in an interaction with wave exposure. The results presented here thereby contribute to increased knowledge on the dynamics between seaweed growth and grazer abundance, and the relationships to habitat fragmentation and wave exposure. However, more studies on seaweed growth physiology are needed in order to disentangle the effects of different environmental factors. More controlled studies on the impact of environmental variables on grazer abundance and ecotype are also needed, and studies using exclusion chambers should be applied in order to prevent uncontrolled grazing impacting the studies and the ability to draw conclusions from them.
Despite the lack of a fit-for-purpose study design on the effect of grazing, our study still emphasizes the important of discussing the potential dangers that overgrazing events can pose to marine habitats, also in the intertidal (as have been studied and discussed for many years in e.g., the kelp forests, Ling et al. 2015). As increased winds, more frequent storm events and more habitat fragmentation is expected in the future, our findings on the effect of these interacting pressures on grazer abundance is relevant for the discussion on the importance of safeguarding the connectivity of intertidal habitats. Further studies, both in experimental setups and in the field, are needed to confirm and challenge our results, and to continue unravelling the relationship between the variables under study.
References
Bäck S (1993) Morphological variation of northern Baltic Fucus vesiculosus along the exposure gradient. Ann Bot Fen 30:275–283
Bäck S, Collins JC, Russell G (1992) Effects of salinity on growth of Baltic and Atlantic Fucus vesiculosus. Brit Phycol J 27:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071619200650061
Barboza FR, Kotta J, Weinberger F, Jormalainen V, Kraufvelin P, Molis M, Schubert H, Pavia H, Nylund GM, Kautsky L, Schagerström E, Rickert E, Saha M, Fredriksen S, Martin G, Torn K, Ruuskanen A, Wahl M (2019) Geographic variation in fitness-related traits of the bladderwrack Fucus vesiculosus along the Baltic Sea-North Sea salinity gradient. Ecol Evol 9:9225–9238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5470
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bokn TL, Hoell EE, Kersting K, Moy FE, Sørensen K (2001) Methods applied in the large littoral mesocosms study of nutrient enrichment in rocky shore ecosystems – EULIT. Cont Shelf Res 21:1925–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4343(01)00035-8
Bonsdorff E, Nelson WG (1996) Apical growth-measurements of Fucus vesiculosus L.: limited value in monitoring. Bot Mar 39:129–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/botm.1996.39.1-6.129
Boulding EG, Holst M, Pilon V (1999) Changes in selection on gastropod shell size and thickness with wave-exposure on northeastern pacific shores. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 232:217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0981(98)00117-8
Bracken MES, Dolecal RE, Long JD (2014) Community context mediates the top-down vs. bottom-up effects of grazers on rocky shores. Ecology 95:1458–1463. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2094.1
Bulleri F, Eriksson BK, Queirós A, Airoldi L, Arenas F, Arvanitidis C, Bouma TJ, Crowe TP, Davoult D, Guizien K, Iveša L, Jenkins SR, Michalet R, Olabarria C, Procaccini G, Serrão EA, Wahl M, Benedetti-Cecchi L (2018) Harnessing positive species interactions as a tool against climate-driven loss of coastal biodiversity. PLOS Biol 16:e2006852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006852
Buschbaum C, Buschbaum G, Schrey I, Thieltges DW (2007) Shell-boring polychaetes affect gastropod shell strength and crab predation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:123–130. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps329123
Christie H, Norderhaug K, Fredriksen S (2009) Macrophytes as habitat for fauna. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 396:221–233. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08351
Clayden M, Kidd K, Chételat J, Hall B, Garcia E (2014) Environmental, geographic and trophic influences on methylmercury concentrations in macroinvertebrates from lakes and wetlands across Canada. Ecotoxicology 23:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-013-1171-9
Cotas J, Gomes L, Pacheco D, Pereira L (2023) Ecosystem services provided by seaweeds. Hydrobiology 2:75–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology2010006
Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett 11:1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x
Davison IR, Pearson GA (1996) Stress tolerance in intertidal seaweeds. J Phycol 32:197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1996.00197.x
Denny MW, Daniel TL, Koehl MAR (1985) Mechanical limits to size in wave-swept organisms. Ecol Monogr 55:69–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942526
Engkvist R, Malm T, Tobiasson S (2000) Density dependent grazing effects of the isopod Idotea baltica Pallas on Fucus vesiculosus L in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Ecol 34:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009919526259
Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Carpenter SR, Essington TE, Holt RD, Jackson JBC, Marquis RJ, Oksanen L, Oksanen T, Paine RT, Pikitch EK, Ripple WJ, Sandin SA, Scheffer M, Schoener TW, Wardle DA (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333(6040):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205106
Fox J, Weisberg S (2018) An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc
Graiff A, Liesner D, Karsten U, Bartsch I (2015) Temperature tolerance of western Baltic Sea Fucus vesiculosus – growth, photosynthesis and survival. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 471:8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2015.05.009
Halpern BS, Frazier M, Potapenko J, Casey KS, Koenig K, Longo C, Lowndes JS, Rockwood RC, Selig ER, Selkoe KA, Walbridge S (2015) Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615
Hayes L, Lukic I, Moy SR, Fagerli CW, Rinde E, Christie H, Bekkby T (2024a). Data on Fucus vesiculosus tip growth, seaweed branching, wave exposure and fragmentation level – a mesocosm experiment in 2022. Zenodo dataset. https://zenodo.org/records/11085363
Hayes L Lukic I, Moy SR, Fagerli CW, Rinde E, Christie H, Bekkby T (2024b) Data on snail coverage in a mesocosm experiment in the Oslofjord June to September 2022. Zenodo dataset. https://zenodo.org/records/11085510
Hennige S, Roberts J (2019) Chapter 5: Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In “The ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate” IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
Jiang, J. (2007) Linear and generalized linear mixed models and their applications (Springer series in statistics) (2007 ed.). Springer
Kalvas A, Kautsky L (1993) Geographical variation in Fucus vesiculosus morphology in the Baltic and North Seas. Eur J Phycol 28:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670269300650141
Kautsky L, Kautsky H (1989) Algal species diversity and dominance along gradients of stress and disturbance in marine environments. Vegetatio 83:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00031698
Koehl M, Daniel TL (2022) Hydrodynamic interactions between macroalgae and their epibionts. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.872960
Kraufvelin P, Lindholm A, Pedersen MF, Kirkerud LA, Bonsdorff E (2010) Biomass, diversity and production of rocky shore macroalgae at two nutrient enrichment and wave action levels. Mar Biol 157:29–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1293-z
Kraufvelin P, Christie H, Gitmark JK (2020) Top-down release of mesopredatory fish is a weaker structuring driver of temperate rocky shore communities than bottom-up nutrient enrichment. Mar Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-020-3665-3
Krause-Jensen D, Duarte CM (2016) Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nat Geosci 9:737–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2790
Lenth R (2022) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package
Ling SD, Scheibling RE, Rassweiler A, Johnson CR, Shears N, Connell SD, Salomon AK, Norderhaug KM, Pérez-Matus A, Hernández JV, Clemente S, Blamey LK, Hereu B, Ballesteros E, Sala E, Garrabou J, Cebrian E, Zabala M, Fujita D, Johnson LE (2015) Global regime shift dynamics of catastrophic sea urchin overgrazing. Philos Trans R Soc B 370:20130269. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0269
Long J, Porturas L, Jones E, Kwan C, Trussell G (2013) Seaweed traits linked to wave exposure determine predator avoidance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 483:143–151. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10294
Lubchenco J (1983) Littorina and fucus:effects of herbivores, substratum heterogeneity, and plant escapes during succession. Ecology 64:1116–1123. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937822
Mac Monagail M, Cornish L, Morrison L, Araújo R, Critchley AT (2017) Sustainable harvesting of wild seaweed resources. Eur J Phycol 52:371–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2017.1365273
Martone PT, Kost LE, Boller ML (2012) Drag reduction in wave-swept macroalgae: alternative strategies and new predictions. Am J Bot 99:806–815. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1100541
Menge B (1978) Predation intensity in a rocky intertidal community. effect of an algal canopy, wave action and desiccation on predator feeding rates. Oecologia 34:17–35
Merkens JL, Reimann L, Hinkel J, Vafeidis AT (2016) Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Planet Change 145:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.08.009
Mineur F, Arenas F, Assis J, Davies AJ, Engelen AH, Fernandes F, Malta EJ, Thibaut T, Van Nguyen T, Vaz-Pinto F, Vranken S, Serrão EA, De Clerck O (2015) European seaweeds under pressure: consequences for communities and ecosystem functioning. J Sea Res 98:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2014.11.004
Molis M, Scrosati RA, El-Belely EF, Lesniowski TJ, Wahl M (2015) Wave-induced changes in seaweed toughness entail plastic modifications in snail traits maintaining consumption efficacy. J Ecol 103:851–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12386
Moss B (1965) Apical dominance in Fucus vesiculosus. New Phytol 64:387–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1965.tb07547.x
Norton TA (1991) Conflicting constraints on the form of intertidal algae. Brit Phycol J 26:203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071619100650191
Nygård CA, Dring MJ (2008) Influence of salinity, temperature, dissolved inorganic carbon and nutrient concentration on the photosynthesis and growth of Fucus vesiculosus from the Baltic and Irish Seas. Eur J Phycol 43:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670260802172627
O’Hara CC, Frazier M, Halpern BS (2021) At-risk marine biodiversity faces extensive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts. Science 372(6537):84–87. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe6731
R Core Team (2022) R:A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Reeves SE, Kriegisch N, Johnson CR, Ling SD (2022) Kelp habitat fragmentation reduces resistance to overgrazing, invasion and collapse to turf dominance. J Appl Ecol 59:1619–1631. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14171
Ruuskanen A, Bäck S (1999) Morphological variation of northern Baltic Sea Fucus vesiculosus L. Ophelia 50:43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00785326.1999.10409388
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Spruzen FL, Richardson AMM, Woehler EJ (2008) Spatial variation of intertidal macroinvertebrates and environmental variables in Robbins Passage wetlands, NW Tasmania. Hydrobiologia 598:325–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9166-2
Starko S, Claman BZ, Martone PT (2015) Biomechanical consequences of branching in flexible wave-swept macroalgae. New Phytol 206:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13182
Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, Corbett D, Erlandson JM, Estes JA, Tegner MJ (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environ Conserv 29:436–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892902000322
Strömgren T (1994) Apical elongation of fucoid algae exposed to low salinities. Aquat Bot 49:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(94)90007-8
Wahl M, Jormalainen V, Eriksson BK, Coyer JA, Molis M, Schubert H, Dethier M, Karez R, Kruse I, Lenz M, Pearson G, Rohde S, Wikström SA, Olsen JL (2011) Chapter two – stress ecology in fucus: abiotic, biotic and genetic interactions. Adv Mar Biol 59:37–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385536-7.00002-9
Walker DI, Kendrick GA (1998) Threats to macroalgal diversity: marine habitat destruction and fragmentation, Pollution and Introduced Species. Bot Mar 41:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/botm.1998.41.1-6.105
Weitzman B, Konar B, Iken K, Coletti H, Monson D, Suryan R, Dean T, Hondolero D, Lindeberg M (2021) Changes in rocky intertidal community structure during a marine heatwave in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.556820
Acknowledgements
This work is based on the Bachelor thesis of Lucas Hayes at the University of Barcelona, Spain. Thanks to the Research Council of Norway (grant number 342628/L10, project number 314314), the EU project AQUACOSM-plus (H2020-INFRAIA-Project No 871081) and NIVA for funding. We are grateful to Benjamin Kupilaas and Tor Erik Eriksen (NIVA) for all the help with the AQUACOSM-plus funding. The study took place at the NIVA Solbergstrand Experimental Facility, and we want to thank all the staff at Solbergstrand for their help and support. Also, thanks to Neus Sanmartí (University of Barcelona) for co-supervision during the Bachelor work.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Norwegian Institute For Water Research. The project (COASTFRAG) was funded (2021-ongoing) by the Research Council of Norway, grant number 342628/L10 (project 314314), and the EU grant AQUACOSM-plus (TA-project MESOFRAG, H2020-INFRAIA-Project No 871081). Additional funding was provided by the Norwegian Institute for Water Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TB was the project leader and CF and SM were the work package leaders for the work behind this paper. LH and IL did the seaweed measurements, SM recorded the grazer coverage and LH did the semiquantitative classification of grazer abundance. HC and TB supported the data sampling throughout the whole study period and helped with the maintenance of the basins and study design. TB, SM, CF, ER and HC all contributed significantly to the application submitted to the Research Council of Norway and to the study design. LH took his Bachelor of Science degree under the supervision of TB. LH did all the statistical analyses. All authors contributed to the article and have approved the published version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All applicable guidelines for have been followed and all necessary approvals have been obtained. No approval of research ethics committees was required to accomplish the goals of this study because experimental work was conducted with unregulated seaweed and invertebrate species.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: K. Bischof.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hayes, L., Lukić, I., Moy, S.R. et al. Effects of wave exposure and habitat fragmentation on growth and grazing of rocky shore seaweeds: a mesocosm experiment. Mar Biol 171, 145 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-024-04456-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-024-04456-9